Has anyone ever asked you, "Did you get that email I
sent you?" but the email NEVER arrived. If you answered
"yes" you may be a victim of email black holing.
You may be wondering, "Why would anyone
steal my email in the first place?" I don't put anything of
value in my email messages. They aren't looking for anything
valuable. As a matter of fact they don't even look at your email at
all.
They are black holing mail from your network because there is an
email server in your network that allows relaying of email messages.
This is normally a good thing. It is one of the principles that the
Internet is founded on, and one of the principle reasons the
Internet works. If the mail can't be delivered via one route it is
relayed via a different route to it's final destination.
The MAPS (Mail Abuse Prevention System) RBL
(Realtime Black hole List) and the Open Relay Behavior-modification System
(ORBS) are lists of networks which are known to relay email. As they
discover such networks, they deny them access to part of the
Internet. Ostensibly because they are paying for the upkeep of their
part of the network and don't want to relay your messages over their
part of the Internet.
These bandwidth terrorists have decided to
decide for everyone that certain segments of the internet community
don't deserve to have access, either because they engage in mass
email marketing, or they relay any email that crosses their network.
This "denial of service" is most often done without the
consent or knowledge of the network users.
Before you say, "Hey that's cool! They're
stopping junk e-mail." Take a moment to consider the damage
they are causing you and everyone who participates in relaying email traffic.
Theft of Service
These folks say they consider unsolicited email
to be theft of service, complaining about the annoyance associated with
receiving unsolicited email. They argue that Internet users do not
pay their access fees for the purpose of being annoyed by junk mail.
They also say that since the original ARPAnet the written rules of
the Internet community have required that we each refrain from
intentionally annoying other Internet citizens, that they are
justified in whatever actions they decide are appropriate.
Well, almost no one gains access to the
internet for free, even libraries pay for access from public
terminals. Everyone pays for access, even junk-mailers. Stopping
mass email from one person or an entire segment of the Internet
isn't going to fix the problem. Blocking network traffic is the
equivalent of parking your car in a busy intersection at rush hour
just because you hate all the other nuts on the highway.
Culture of Openness
Since the beginning of the Internet the
assumption has been that any host on the network should be allowed
to send mail to any other host on the network. Another assumption
built into Internet's protocols is that mail should always be
relayed if it is not on its final host. These people want to alter
these assumptions, but they aren't asking or talking to the people
they are affecting the most, the users.
With the ever increasing number of small
businesses who manage their own internet domains, who either don't
have the resources or knowledge to police the email passing through
their network, blocking traffic on a network is not only denying
access to junk-mailers, it's denying access to everyone who happens
to share the network with that junk-mailer.
Blocking network traffic is mostly hurting the
small guys. If you understand the internet you know that the bigger
you are the more access points you have. Big companies may pay more
for their network, but they also have the benefit of multiple access
points. This allows them to pass network traffic virtually anywhere
they want. They have enough access points to send their traffic,
email or otherwise, where ever they want without being blocked. If a
big company wants to send you unsolicited email they can. Small
businesses can't do that.
Lying Conmen and Rights to
Passage
These anti-email terrorists would have you
believe that everyone sending promotional email is trying to con
you. They talk about how the internet was "before" it
became commercialized. I don't think, as some do, that they are necessarily
anti-commerce, just a little out of sync, and way
over-reactionary.
They argue that "No Internet user has any
fundamental right to send you e-mail or any other kind of
traffic." They say they are exercising their right to refuse
traffic from anyone they choose.
I would argue equally that no one has the right
to slam on the brakes when they're driving just because they're
annoyed with traffic. I would also argue that no one has a
fundamental right to DENY access. Each user shares in the
maintenance costs of the network through their access fees. If a
user in on a company network and the company allows them to access
the internet, the company is paying the access fees.
If someone subscribes to a private
network, like AOL, then that network has the right to make whatever
rules it wants. If the users don't like the rules they can subscribe
to another network, but the Internet isn't a private network, it was
started by the government as a defense project. It was tax money
that paid for the Internet in the beginning. Now, we are
all paying for access to a common area called the Internet, and when
someone denies access or blocks traffic we all lose.
Imagine for a moment one of the tenants in your
office building set up a roadblock in one of the entrances to the
buildings common area and told
you you would have to go to another entrance. I'm sure you'd be glad
to oblige and march right over to the next entrance without any
question, right? I doubt it. You'd probably raise hell with
management until the roadblock was removed. Not a bad idea. If
you're losing mail you think you should get, talk to your management
about removing the roadblock. If it's not your management, complain
to the management of the company that is blocking your mail.
One of the primary attractions of the Internet
is that it allows open access to all sorts of information. Now, the
anti-email terrorists want to restrict the flow of information
because they don't like the type of information they're receiving.
This is a lot like some fundamentalist religions that want to
prevent everyone from consuming alcohol just because they think it's
sinful. If you want to restrict access to your network, don't link
it to the internet.
Commerce is Good
You should know that a lot of what is being
called "spam" is email from small companies who have a
legitimate product to offer. They aren't conmen or scammers, they're
small retailers who are just trying to make an honest living.
Blocking email traffic is just another tool big
companies can use to crowd out the little guys. Even if the
anti-email terrorists aren't working for the big companies, they are
working in the best interest of big companies. The more small
businesses that are restricted from sending promotional email, the
better the big business' chances of getting you to respond to their
promotional email.
Are there people who use the internet to con
honest folks? Yes there are. Are their crazy people who drive like
maniacs on the freeway? We've all had to deal with them. Do all
criminals or idiots get caught? No. Blocking internet traffic hurts
everyone, just like slamming on your brakes in the middle the
freeway.
With thousands of IP addresses available to
them, big business traffic is immune to MAPS RSS or ORBS blocking.
Their junk-mail will just get re-routed to another network or
segment of IP addresses. The anti-email terrorists says that any
type of unsolicited email is theft of service. I guess in their
minds it's ok for ATT to steal service, just as long as they aren't
selling Girl Scout cookies.
Censorship and Free Speech
The anti-email terrorists seem concerned that
someone might argue that they are restricting free speech. I guess
if the email that's being passed around is a petition to stop bulk
emailing they probably wouldn't mind. I don't really see it as a
free speech issue though, more of an equal access issue. Do big
companies have more of a right to send you unsolicited email than
the corner flower shop? From a practical standpoint right now the
answer would be yes. They can send you any unsolicited email they
want, the flower shop can only send you email if your network hasn't
been blocked.
Historical Context of
Promotional Email
IF you read the information the anti-email
terrorists put out they will try to convince you, repeatedly, that
the people who send promotional email are thieves. They will try to
argue that anyone who sends unsolicited email is trying to steal
from you because you, and assumably they, have paid for access and
that the sender is using your service time to promote their
activities.
The anti-email terrorists seems to overlook the
fact that whoever sent you that unsolicited email had to pay for
service also. They had to invest something to get it sent, either
paying someone to do it for them, or in purchasing the hardware and
connection to do it themselves. They're business people, they made
an investment, if they are offering something you have use of, they
may see a return. It's not theft. IF anyone is stealing it's the
people, and/or networks, that block traffic. They are not just
stopping the promotional mail, they are stopping any mail that is
bound to or from a network they deem as unworthy.
The anti-email terrorists also try to make the
point that good advertising "is expensive, and if it succeeds
it is because it actually does offer some kind of value to the
people who respond to it." In comments like this these people
reveal their name-brand bias and naivety. Good advertising is any
advertising that produces more revenue than it costs to generate it.
In this regard email is an excellent way to advertise. Small entrepreneurs
know it, big businesses know it. If there were no
value to anyone in the promotional mail that was being sent the
senders would quit sending. People just aren't going to keep pouring
money into something that doesn't produce results.
It sounds to me more like the anti-email
terrorists are just sore because they don't have anything worth selling. They
try to argue that the primary things that are being promoted via
email are pornography, Viagra, hair restoration creme, and pyramid
schemes. I'll admit that there is a lot of this sort of stuff being
touted, I would guess that it's because these are the sorts of
things people don't want to admit paying for.
As far as pyramid
schemes go, they're illegal. If someone is engaging in a PYRAMID
scheme, which is not the same as multi-level marketing, it's considered wire fraud and it
is a federal crime. I hope the perpetrators are caught and
punished. Other than that, mass marketing email and MLM are not
illegal.
The anti-email terrorists say the products
advertised via email would be just a commentary on the sad state of
human nature -- if they as recipients were not underwriting the
costs of its transmission, processing, and storage. Once again I
have to point out that unless "they" own the network they
aren't paying, everyone pays for access. If they do own a network
they must object to promotional email out of their own
self-interest. They want to send it, they just don't want any one
else to. I have to cry foul!
Legality of Unsolicited
Email
The anti-email terrorists think that
eventually, various governments will enact laws which will make the
sending of unsolicited email less commercially appealing. I don't doubt this to
be true. However, Until then these vigilantes have decide to spend whatever
amount of effort and money it takes to block traffic from open relay
email servers, simply because these servers could be used to send
unsolicited email. In the meantime hundreds of thousands of normal
email transmissions will be bounced, lost, or black-holed simply
because a few zealots are angry about getting too many Viagra ads or
not getting their share of the Internet wealth.
Legality of
Black holing
In fairness they do acknowledge that what they
are doing may be illegal. They must be thinking about the Sherman Antitrust
Act since their actions might be interpreted as a conspiracy in
restraint of trade? They say they aren't worried because lots of
people hate junk email. This may be true. Well after all who really likes junk
mail, until they get the one piece that IS offering something they
need badly, like glasses or prescription drugs at 50% off.
I would suggest that if black holing isn't
illegal it should be. Since email is now recognized as a legal means
of transacting business, we have to consider the consequences of
having our email arbitrarily dumped just because of a few
disgruntled System Administrators and techno-geeks. How long will it be before some
important contract gets black holed. Has it already happened to you?
Would you even know? What will you do if you end up in an awkward legal situation
because someone decided your network didn't deserve
to have it's email delivered.
Black holing email is a lot like the
blacklisting of suspected communist actors in Hollywood during the
50s. Just because you suspect someone of something doesn't give you
the right to deprive them of a livelihood. Blacklisting was found to
be illegal then and black holing should be illegal now.
So-called remove lists
The anti-email terrorists claim remove lists
are an urban myth, and they couldn't be more cynical about this.
As a network and email administrator I have to
tell you that automated lists do exist. Eudora email server
incorporates automated list management in their $150 email server
software. List management is built into some of Microsoft's server
software. Distribution lists can be used in Microsoft Exchange, and
subscription list management is built into Commerce Server. I
understand that there are people who don't honor remove requests,
and those who actually use remove requests to confirm valid email
addresses. That doesn't mean their aren't legitimate businesses
managed by scrupulous people who maintain automated lists as a way to
communicate with their potential customers. If an automated list is set up
correctly and simple instructions are provided for removing an email
address, this is a much simpler way to terminate unwanted email.
Another argument the anti-email terrorists use
is that if they didn't join a list they shouldn't have to remove
themselves. Well in a perfect world ATT and AOL wouldn't sell your
email address for promotional purposes in the first place. However,
since big businesses do sell client information, the best possible
solution is to require promotional e-mailers to have a functional
remove list. It would be a better solution than randomly black holing
email.
Responsibility for
Unsolicited Email
The anti-email terrorists say that
the ultimate responsibility for unsolicited email lies with the
owner-operator of a network. They argue that if you know people are
likely to use your technology for a particular purpose then you are responsible
when they actually use it.
There are two sides to this, gun manufacturers
and owners aren't usually held responsible when someone uses a gun
to commit a murder, neither are TV shows that promote violence. On
the other hand a recent court ruling said that Napster, the music
sharing database software company, was responsible for making sure
it's users didn't violate the copyright of licensed material. Your
opinion on this will probably depend on whether you own guns or
download MP3 files.
What Can I Do?
I think a more responsible approach is to ask
our legislators to enact some promotional email guidelines to lower
the noise level. Here are a couple of suggestions:
Require any
promotional mail to be marked as such. Some states already require
this. A couple of states require that promotional email be marked
with ADV: in the subject line of unsolicited email. This makes it
easy to filter.
Require anyone
who is sending bulk email to provide a functional REMOVE mechanism
Require that
promotional email contain a legal mailing address and phone number
Require that the senders of
promotional email display a registered business name or ID number
Require promotional e-mailers to
obtain a bulk email permit similar to bulk-mail permits required
by the postal service
I understand and agree that
irresponsible and unsolicited email is bothersome, so is having your
mail black holed because of someone else's bad behavior or arbitrary
decision to do so.
The anti-email terrorists goal is to shut down
unsolicited e-mailers regardless of the content of their messages.
This approach treats pleas for donations to charity the same as ads
for weight-loss gimmicks. This approach isn't likely to work and the
ones most likely to be hurt are the legitimate users. As one door shuts
another opens. The internet is global, if you ban unsolicited email
here the scammers will just move their activities to servers in Canada, or Ecuador, or India. In the mean time
there is mass collateral damage to innocent email users whose mail is
dumped, and charitable causes who are prohibited from using this
tool in an appropriate manner.
It seems to me that enacting legislation to
control mass e-mailers is a lot more likely to happen. Let's not
forget a lot of these e-mailers are small businesses. Should we
restrict their use of promotional email any more than we restrict
the use of promotional email by the big companies? Should we put
small businesses here in America at a disadvantage by outlawing
unsolicited email while other countries permit their small
businesses to operate unfettered by such restrictions?
Owning and operating your own business is an American dream
that's getting harder and harder to realize. Big businesses always want to reserve the advantages for themselves. I guess that's
what big businesses are suppose to do, but black holing email,
especially the promotional email of small businesses, will do
nothing to stop unscrupulous operators and will take away one more
tool the little guy has to level the playing field with big
business.
Do you really want to take away one of the best tools small
businesses have to compete with the big guys? Do you really
want to shut the door on your own opportunity to realize your dreams of
having your own business someday? Do you really want to allow a few
disgruntled techies to control YOUR email? Do you really want to black hole the
American dream? I hope not, and if you think about it, trashing your
junk email is a small price to pay.
For more information about the LAW governing UCE
(Unsolicited Commercial Email) read Senate
Bill 1618. Now more than ever Blackholing is illegal!
